What DN Neglected to Mention re Venezuela

13.06.05 | Today in DN Kultur, Stefan Jonsson tells readers of the latest advances in Latin American socialism, as relayed by the dispassionate observers at Le Monde Diplomatique.
In an item on Venezuela’s “democratic revolution,” Jonsson enthuses
about all those new schools built by big-hearted “Boliviarians,” the
15,000 doctors on loan from the big-hearted Cubans and the supposed
“elimination” of illiteracy (According to UN figures, literacy has
ticked up two percentage points under Chavez, from 90.9 percent to
92.9). Beyond these very Castroite indices—literacy and healthcare are
usually cited as benchmarks of Cuba’s revolutionary success—Venezuela
is requisitioning private property at a rapid clip, with "large estates
that cannot provide a legal land claim” having to fork over their plots
“to small farmers,” according to DN. But as one Venezuelan commentator
recently noted, the two largest land seizures (of British-owned El
Charcote and Venezuelan-owned Hato Piñero) were from “owners [who] had
land titles going back as far as 1850.” This thin veneer of legality,
which only Jonsson seems to have fallen for, prompted the Washington Post,
in an unsigned editorial, to call the land seizures an “assault on
private property” that is “undermining the foundations of democracy and
free enterprise.”

But to DN Kultur, a Latin American
strongman with a democratic mandate and a penchant for crude
anti-Americanism is too romantic; another chance to relive the
excitement of the Sandinista years; yet another pit stop on the
political pilgrimage, in search of the “good society.” “Land, health,
education. A classic recipe for fighting poverty,” says Jonsson,
sounding curiously like his article’s subject.

Furthermore, he explains, prior to the victory of Bolivarianism poor Venezuelans had "never before seen people’s TV,”
which will give the plebs "the opportunity to represent themselves” and
their “identity.” This forthcoming Marxiod version of CNN is designed
to “confront global media companies and their monopoly on information,”
Jonsson says. One of the stations co-owners, we are told, without a
hint of irony, is Fidel Castro, who knows a thing or two about
information monopolies.

American leftists harbor far fewer illusions about Chavez than their counterparts in Europe. Left-wing magazine Salon
criticized Chavez’s "quasi-messianic complex" and observed that he was
the only "democratically elected head of state to visit Baghdad since
the 1991 Persian Gulf War," where he toured the city in Saddam’s Mercedes. The New Republic also
called the Chavez ideology "messianic", and faulted those liberals
whose "romantic predispositions [have] clouded their ability to judge
any regional political development since the good old days of
revolution in the 1960s." Both the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times editorial
pages recently called Chavez “a demagogue,” suggesting that his brand
of politics is bad for regional stability. In 2004, the French watchdog
group Reporters sans frontiers lamented that “press freedom was
eroded a little further” with the introduction of a law curtailing
critical speech. Commenting on the same legislation, Human Rights Watch
warned that bring government pressure to bear on private television
stations “severely threaten press freedom in Venezuela.” Marc Cooper of The Nation

bluntly called Chavez a “con man” and pointed his readers to a group of
Venezuelan leftists who opposed his “authoritarian and
intellectually-insulting rule.”

Now imagine the Bush administration—or Bush supporters—firing on and killingscores of Kerry supporters.
Or a Bush-friendly police force "tortur[ing] some protesters…detained
during recent anti-government demonstrations.” Imagine Bush providing
comfortable sanctuary to a terrorist responsible for thousands of
deaths in neighboring Canada, and allowing such a person to take part
in a government-sponsored seminar. Imagine American public broadcasting
being used to spread "neo-conservative" propaganda—and only
neoconservative propaganda, under the assumption that democratically
elected governments have a political mandate to control the
dissemination of opinion. Imagine text books rewritten to mirror
Republican ideology and a President who proclaims that he is simply
“declaring war on the immorality that continues to take place in
private education.” Or image that a former assistant secretary general
of the United Nations and a group of apolitical Harvard and MIT
professors said that Bush’s latest electoral victory was a result of
fraud (Recall how the European press responded to charges of fraud
after the 2000 election). Or if Bush waxed romantic about a leader who
murdered 60 million people. Or if the Bush administration, swimming in
oil revenue, presided over a consistently moribund economy. Or if
President Bush forced state television to provide five hours of
uninterrupted air time, during which he traded in conspiracy theory and
harangued viewers on shadowy forces plotting their country’s downfall.
Or if the White House sent the IRS those uncooperative jackals in the
independent media, and then "seized equipment from the 24-hour news channel"
CNN. Or publicly declared his desire to create a "white-skinned
utopia"? Or referred to country that hadn’t seen a free election in
fifty years as “a sea of happiness?”

Just imagine such a scenario, Steffan.

Footnote: DN’s
headline declaring a “democratic revolution” is misleading. Leaving
aside credible claims of vote fraud, it is worth pointing out that
democracy isn’t established with by electoral victory alone; it
requires consistent democratic follow-through. For example, if
National Socialists come to power legally—they weren’t elected, as is
often assumed—and undertake illiberal and undemocratic measures against
opposition parties and media outlets, they naturally forfeit the
democratic mantel. Besides, since when does the establishment of a
government-funded, single-ideology television channel bode well for
democracy? It is irrelevant that anti-Chavez forces own television
stations and major newspapers. A government sponsored media is beholden
to all of its constituents.

As I mentioned above, examples of Chavez’s assault on liberty and freedom are many. The Washington Post editorial page, outlined recent developments in Venezuela thusly:

Last
Sunday hundreds of heavily armed Venezuelan troops invaded one of the
country’s largest and most productive cattle ranches, launching what
President Hugo Chavez describes as his "war against the estates." The
next day Mr. Chavez signed a decree under which authorities are
expected to seize scores of other farms in the coming weeks. This
assault on private property is merely the latest step in what has been
a rapidly escalating "revolution" by Venezuela’s president that is
undermining the foundations of democracy and free enterprise in that
oil-producing country. The response of Venezuela’s democratic
neighbors, and the United States, ranges from passivity to tacit
encouragement.

In the past four months Mr. Chavez has pushed
through a new law that allows the government to fine or shut down
private media for vaguely defined offenses against "public order." His
supporters have enacted a new legal code that criminalizes
anti-government demonstrations; people who bang empty pots and pans in
protest, as Venezuelans have been doing for several years, can be
sentenced to jail. Last month Mr. Chavez stacked the Supreme Court with
17 new appointees, including one who has suggested a constitutional
amendment that would allow the self-styled "Bolivarian" leader to
become president for life. Former leaders of leftist militant
organizations, including one who served a prison sentence for abducting
a U.S. business executive, are pouring Venezuela’s surging oil revenue
into state-planned socialist cooperatives.

Footnote Two:
If the “revolution” has been a success, wonders Venezualan blogger
Miguel Octavio, “why is poverty up in Venezuela since Chavez took power
seven years ago? Why is children malnutrition (sic) up since Chavez
took over seven years ago? If oil production is at normal levels, how
come oil GDP is going down despite higher prices?” Good questions.